Charles County Planning Commission Meeting - October 19, 2026

The Charles County Planning Commission convened on October 19, 2026, with all members present. The central agenda item was a work session and vote on Docket 8A, a proposal to delegate certain minor architectural and use approvals from the St. Charles Plan Design Review Board (PDRB) to county planning staff, aimed at reducing delays for homeowners and small businesses.

Consent Calendar

• Roll call was taken. Present: Kevin Wettding, Denard Earl, Jeffrey Bossert, Samaya Hackett, Ryan Sekretarsky, Britt Toku.
• The agenda was approved.
• Minutes of September 21, 2026, were approved (Commissioner Earl recused).
• Minutes of October 5, 2026, were approved (Commissioner Chow recused due to absence).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Staff recounted public testimony from the prior hearing on this item. They reported that opposition was primarily based on a conflation of the proposal with data center development. Staff explicitly and repeatedly stated that this delegation has no bearing on data center approvals.
• Staff noted that supporters of the request acknowledged it would streamline an inefficient process for basic homeowner items (fences, decks, sheds) and small business openings, who currently face lengthy PDRB delays.

Discussion Items

• Docket 90 Designation Delegation: Jason Groth (Planning Director), Kathy Reisinger (Deputy Director), and Steve Scott (Attorney for St. Charles) presented the narrowly-scoped request. The delegation applies only to: residential projects after initial certificate of occupancy; commercial changes in ownership or tenant without a change in use; and temporary commercial sign permits. It does not affect new construction, exterior renovations, use changes, or growth rates. A final draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) detailing roles and responsibilities was included in the meeting materials.
• Planning Commission Role and Transparency: Commissioner Jeffrey Bossert raised concerns that the Planning Commission could be placed in a difficult position if it only sees major projects at the site development plan stage. He advocated for earlier notification and more frequent reviews of St. Charles master plans. Staff responded that the standard process for all zones is to review site plans, and the significant pre-development costs (e.g., $100,000 to $500,000 for utility studies for a data center) typically ensure developers conduct thorough due diligence and community outreach before reaching that stage.
• Staff Capacity: Commissioner Samaya Hackett questioned whether county staff had sufficient resources to handle the new approvals without creating new delays. Staff confirmed the workload would not increase—the same applications would simply bypass the PDRB step, potentially reducing current wait times of up to four months for simple permits like decks and sheds.
• Stakeholder Engagement: The Chairperson recommended that St. Charles representatives schedule a formal update briefing for the Planning Commission, a practice that has not occurred recently.

Key Outcomes

• Motion Approved: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the delegation of authority for the defined minor items to the county.
• Memorandum of Understanding: The approval is contingent on the execution of a formal MOU, with an indefinite term and termination provisions, to be signed by the President of the County Commissioners and St. Charles Community LLC.
• Action Items: Staff committed to exploring ways to provide the Planning Commission with earlier notice of significant commercial or industrial development in the PUD. The St. Charles team agreed to present a community status update to the Commission. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 PM.